On Wednesday 14 June 2006 23:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 17:04 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: > > The gripe in this respect is that we have developers (who don't respond > > to emails, friendly or otherwise) that will dump packages into dev-perl, > > copy a metadata.xml from another pkg, and leave it as is - and since we > > (perl project folks) use a stock metadata.xml listing perl as the herd, > > and [EMAIL PROTECTED] as maintainer, that means we get stuck with the > > package. It sucks because you get bugs for badly written ebuilds and > > your only trace of how it got there is either the ChangeLog (if you're > > lucky) or the cvs log (had to resort to that once or twice too) - and in > > the end, the bugger doesn't care who's package it is, they want it > > fixed, and its not their fault for filing a bug, so you grind on and > > take care of it. > > That's the thing. That developer is wrong, and has done something > wrong. I see nothing wrong with listing perl as the herd, *only* if > they have themselves as the maintainer.
Only with perl consent. The perl herd then gets the responsibility to take over if the maintainer leaves, is unavailable, etc. > > Not exactly... > > Notice it says that a package is a member of a herd, not a person. A > herd can have one or more projects responsible for maintaining the > packages in it. In *most* cases, the group of developers responsible > for a given herd either have an alias that matches the herd, or are a > project with a similar alias. > > > > To make it pretty clear and explicit - bugs gets assigned to > > > <maintainer> (if there's any in metadata.xml), and get CCed to <herd> > > > (if there's any in metadata.xml). If there's no <maintainer>, whoever > > > is in <herd> will get that bug assigned and can happily smack you <> > > > once they've find out you've dumped the package on them without their > > > knowledge... > > > > he does appear to be correctly quoting the documentation on the site. > > That's where I disagree. His practice is correct. It should be > assigned to the maintainers of the herd, if no maintainer is listed, but > a herd is *not* a group of developers. It is a group of packages, with > developers that maintain that group. Nowhere did I write (nor was it agreed then) that herd membership should be automatic. The bug wranglers seem to be doing the right thing. Assign to maintainer, CC the herd email address. > > > And we can't blame the bug wranglers for following this documentation - > > we either update it or accept that that's what we have published to date. > > Except that what I am saying is what the documentation says, and also > the intention of the documentation, as stated by some of the people who > wrote it, back when we had the whole "herds vs. teams" thread. The reason there should always be a herd is very simple. People leave, groups of people leave less, and can be replenished. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp33JqLRbDJT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
